Posted on 05/23/2002 6:48:35 AM PDT by Registered
The definition of spam involves profit, and there's zero profit for me in any of this.
Moreover, you spam-crying clowns remind me somewhat of the story of the politician who started to tell a texas-aggie joke and was informed that there were a few texas aggies in the audience. His reply was "Okay, I'll tell it S-L-O-W...."
Likewise, you evos might not LIKE seeing some of this stuff more than once but, apparently, you NEED to see it more than once. I mean, at some point the idea of your brain-dead ideology having been bypassed by history will start to sink in. Kind of like medicine: nobody LIKES taking medicine, but sometime you NEED it.
Now look at the behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; only He Who made him can bring near His sword.
Which religion would you be referring to--Christianity or Darwinism?
The evidence of this finding is both widespread and irrefutable. It includes not only drawings of humans' experiences, but also actual photographs and film, and has been found in the ruins of virtually every 20th century society on earth. A very small sampling of these startling historical images are presented below.
Have your son ever seen pictures of dragons? I'm willing to bet he has, and his drawings mimic what he has already seen. Have you ever seen a space monster? Has he? Doubtful, therefore his drawings cannot be corroborated as being factual in their basis (he used his imagination). Have paleontologists dug up many fossils and skeletons of these various species of dinosaurs? Do they in fact have a very good idea, if not definite knowledge, of the physical appearance of these animals? Since the answers to both of those questions is "yes," then we know those ancient drawings are in fact of real dinosaurs who we know for a fact once existed.
I think your argument needs work.
You don't have to be a paleontologist to dig up dinosaur bones. The ancient Greeks found fossils, and knew they were bones of animals that they didn't see walking around. No reason to think the Indians didn't find bones of "dragons," and didn't repeat stories about those discoveries.
...which would be a great explanation if we were talking about stories, but we're talking about actual drawings made by people thousands of years ago that clearly depict dinosaur species that have been discovered by more modern day scientists. How could these ancient peoples have known what dinosaurs looked like if they could never have seen one? Could they extrapolate their appearance based on a couple of bones? I doubt it.
The comment about my son's drawings are admittedly "color commentary." I'd say the meat of my argument is in the first statement you didn't quote: "of course, there is no other plausible explanation for these images except that the Indians were familiar with living dinosaurs."
The central issue, I believe, is whether or not direct encounter with living dinosaurs is the only plausible explanation for the pictographs. I think not. Just off the top of my head, I can think of several. The possibility that Indians extrapolated from fossils encountered by themselves or others during their many years of close familiarity with the American landscape. The possibility that Indians participated in cross-cultural exchange of stories that became mythological raw material during contacts with travellers from other civilizations, such as African or Oriental or European ocean travellers with extensive mythological beastiaries of their own. The possibility that Indian shamans experienced during the altered state of consciousness of a dream or trance images that were later portrayed as mythical creatures that conceivably resemble dinosaurs. Even the possibility that the petroglyphs are fakes.
Not saying that I prefer one or another of these other possibilities. But it's just silly to say that the only plausible explanation is encounter with living dinosaurs. As silly as my pointing at my son's drawings as proof of space monsters. Why should the "living encounter" hypothesis be preferred over the ones I listed? No reason I can think of, unless one is trying to make the petroglyphs support a particular theory of the age of the earth or the age of living creatures.
I dispute that they "clearly depict" these species. IMO, the "pterosaur" could be a heron, and the "triceratops" could be a stylized buffalo, ox, or rino. The stegosaur and pleisiasaur are more compelling, but still debatable.
How could these ancient peoples have known what dinosaurs looked like if they could never have seen one? Could they extrapolate their appearance based on a couple of bones?
Not all fossils are just "a couple of bones." And even a couple of bones can be instructive, depending on their relationship to each other when found, and which bones they are.
I don't think most of those pictures are that "clear." The "pterodactyl," for example, looks more like an eagle to me. Besides, there are some pretty complete dinosaur skeletons lying close to--sometimes on-- the surface out west.
The long neck makes me think heron, or maybe goose. Goose that charged me once looked a lot like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.